Oh, hey. It took me awhile to figure out how to properly quote here, too. Apparently if you hover over the text block a little arrow shows so you can quote the user, and if you want to quote a specific text you can highlight the text until the quote option shows up. That might make it a bit easier mentioning someone. :smile:

. What is amazing to me is that so much of American political discourse nowadays seems to be about people's hating one another. I think it is a willed thing, making serious political discussion impossible by fixing people into positions that suit their masters. — iolo

American politics is an absolute shit show. It hasn't gotten better in the past few years, either. Politics is everything emotion; and for a majority of people it is filled with nothing but emotion and ideological zombies.

I mostly stay away from it and only gauge in it so far as it is impossible to ignore for well-being and necessary study purposes; but just to spend my leisure time investing emotional energy into politics, I rather not and I avoid those people. It's just not productive, I rather go stuff my face.

Some of these people are passive-aggressive. It is also perfectly normal to hate that which expresses hatred at you, especially if it is not grounded fairly in what you have done, or when violence or extreme disrespect is aimed at you. Or even things like social backstabbing, ongoing disrespect - often bosses are hated, in part because there is no good way for the person disrespected to easily extricate themselves from the dynamic - abuse of power, or when people mistreat people we love. — Coben

Yeah. Which is why I brought up most people that genuinely feel hatred are undergoing intense CBT (if not, likely require it) therapy, and left untreated.. (violently harms themselves), if not anyone else - and "embracing" that is just moronic when there are ways to mitigate it.

There are plenty of people that don't have time for that kind shit though, nor feel "hatred" - or even get to that point. And I find fleeting feelings of 'hate' indistinguishable from fleeting feelings of revulsion, disgust, or distress - to or of something/someone - which is not meaningfully or interestingly telling me anything; since the use of the word "hate" is more so a cathartic release of emotional stress or strain in that moment - reaction to something - like (fuck, shit, damn, ouch!), and etc.. in that way, sure, "hate" is everywhere, and everyone "hates".

So yes, a great deal of people find all kinds of things frustrating and repulsive; doesn't explain much about "hatred" which I view as a prolonged (state) driven by a series of self-defeating/undressed emotions, feelings and habits/practices - either addressed - or unaddressed agony - that usually is released in a number of unethical ways (e.g. deliberative, premeditated, rationalized - or quick, and violent - harmful practices that distinguishes the two is action), as you say, "back-stabbing" and so forth - intent to cause harm or restrict someone else harmfully, one way or another - to someone, or another.

And then there are distinctions between how childhood psychology sees "hate" (and how children behave and resolve, address, deal with conflicts at a different developmental level from more developed humans - and adult hatred which I think is a mistake to compare.

So, the word is weakly, poorly, used in my view if not trivializes and distract from - actual hatred, without saying anything meaningful to me (personally).

So, I don't think OP is some evil guy filled with "hatred" or whatever, think he's just being hard on himself. And yeah, there are plenty of people not walking about "filled and bubbling over with hatred" and manage themselves and emotions just fine. Just seems hyperbolic.

Yeah. Which is why I brought up most people that genuinely feel hatred are undergoing intense CBT (if not, likely require it) therapy, and left untreated.. (violently harms themselves), if not anyone else - and "embracing" that is just moronic when there are ways to mitigate it. — Swan

Where do you get the statistic that most people who genuinely feel hatred at undergoing intense CBT? And what is intense CBT as opposed to the usual CBT? Can you link us to any of that?

So yes, a great deal of people find all kinds of things frustrating and repulsive; doesn't explain much about "hatred" which I view as a prolonged (state) driven by a series of self-defeating/undressed emotions, — Swan

Or you could say they hate a bunch of things

to dislike someone or something very much:

So, you define it a way that makes you think it is not so common, but disliking someone or something very much is very common. And I actually think there are much stronger feeling of rage and anger that we tend to suppress.

"back-stabbing" and so forth - intent to cause harm or restrict someone else harmfully, one way or another - to someone, or another. — Swan

I meant socially backstabbing. The way hatred comes out via gossip, betrayal, office political maneuvers. The types of feelings that come up in close relationships where teenager in relation to their parents or spouses in relation to each other feeling intense rage.

So, I don't think OP is some evil guy filled with "hatred" or whatever, think he's just being hard on himself. And yeah, there are plenty of people not walking about "filled and bubbling over with hatred" and manage themselves and emotions just fine. Just seems hyperbolic. — Swan

I don't think I said all or most people are bubbling over with rage, but most people do experience hatred. It's not an abnormal feeling. I mean look at the poltical divisions in the country and tell me that hatred is not common. It doesn't mean it is all the time. People smile at the their kids, help strangers who felll, down but mention Trump or Hilary and their supporters and you find hate fast. Bosses who mistreat their workers, and that is not uncommon. Ask waiters and bartenders if they ever feel hate at their customers, or anyone is a service postion: hotels, for example. Anywhere where one just has to eat being treated with disrespect.

And of course most of these workers do not snarl their way through life. They have other reactions to other things and people. But they feel hatred, in any sense of the word I have seen.

And so I. It is one of the many emotions I feel, now and then.

Where do you get the statistic that most people who genuinely feel hatred at undergoing intense CBT? And what is intense CBT as opposed to the usual CBT? — Coben

If they aren't undergoing it, they likely require it or should (and not just be CBT has at least somewhat proved itself as being a superior and effective method of mitigating negative thought-processes and emotions), but because any prolonged negative emotion or negative feelings/moods demonstrably puts stress on the body - harming the person and others around them depending on "hatred" is vented into the environment, which is not good in the long-term, and it is always beneficial to mitigate that stress if you have the means, resources and tools as oppose to embrace, like OP is saying.

It isn't a "statistical" question, it's an ethical answer.

By "intense" I mean frequently and consistent sessions, not necessarily rigorous and dense.

Or you could say they hate a bunch of things — Coben

Nah....? But I mean, we could say anything about anything. I find the word to lose any significant meaning at that point.

So, you define it a way that makes you think it is not so common, but disliking someone or something very much is very common. And I actually think there are much stronger feeling of rage and anger that we tend to suppress. — Coben

And you "define" it in a way to which is common. I don't find your definition useful because it poses no meaningful distinction between other fleeting emotions and fleeting cathartic release (e.g. disgust, repulsion, etc - that can exist as reactive social avoidance and offense) - and why we should find them interesting enough to discuss in the context of this thread in the first place as some complex philosophical issue.

But when we address "hatred" is not merely just an emotion, in philosophical, sociopolitical, etc., contexts, I view it as more than just a "reaction" but in order to meaningfully classify someone as "harboring all this hatred" attaching it to their identity as a person, there must be a pattern of intent to cause harm and/or restrict something - or someone, habits and practices, along with a series of self-defeatist behaviors, actions, either addressed - or unaddressed, etc.

So, yeah, I make a distinction between "hatred in politics" and "inactive racists" for example, from "hate" for some guy that fucked up your reservation or stepped on your foot, and some kid disliking pineapples because the flavor is foreign, the latter being significantly more trivial and not philosophically interesting (for me personally anyway) - and as I said I find it distracting and a poor analogy to even bring up children's version of "hate" in gist of "institutionalized hatred" (restricting rights of homosexuals); or supporting those that advocate harm against others.

I meant socially backstabbing. The way hatred comes out via gossip, betrayal, office political maneuvers. The types of feelings that come up in close relationships where teenager in relation to their parents or spouses in relation to each other feeling intense rage. — Coben

I've always been talking about social backstabbing, I didn't misunderstand what you meant.

I am not only discussing "rage" or "aggression", but highlighting that "gossip, betrayal" and especially "political maneuvers" are examples of hatred because they are put into practice and not habitualized into behaviors which is where I again draw the distinction between people saying "I hate this, and that" and fleeting reactive emotions from being a person that genuinely hates.

I don't think I said all or most people are bubbling over with rage, but most people do experience hatred. It's not an abnormal feeling. — Coben

Well, my previous response to you doesn't talk about rage nor do I say it's abnormal to feel, so don't know what you're talking about here.

I mean exactly what I said: Bubbling over with hatred.

This is where I came in...

Most people that genuinely feel hatred are behind bars for crimes of passion, performing ethnic cleanses or going through intense CBT

'genuinely feel hatred' is a phrase which focuses on the type of feeling. Now to meet your criteria it has to be for such prolonged periods of feeling rage that the person's body suffers from stress related deterioration. And you contrast this with 'fleeting' moments of feeling that one can't even distinguish from disgust.

First, there is a lot of room between prolonged periods leading to physical problems due to the stress of negative emotions and fleeting moments that one can't even identify the feeling. And there is a significant percentage of the population who experience hatred between your extremes there. Two, it is very easy to distinguish between hatred and disgust when it is not some fleeting feeling one barely notices.

But when we address "hatred" is not merely just an emotion, in philosophical, sociopolitical, etc., contexts, I view it as more than just a "reaction" but in order to meaningfully classify someone as "harboring all this hatred" attaching it to their identity as a person, there must be a pattern of intent to cause harm and/or restrict something - or someone, habits and practices, along with a series of self-defeatist behaviors, actions, either addressed - or unaddressed, etc. — Swan

I never said anything about attaching it to one's personality and identifying with it. I wrote about experiencing the emotion.

I think your use of the term does not fit the way people on the street use the term, nor the way people who are experts in the language use the term 'hatred'. It also seems like you shift the definition around when it is pointed out that many people feel hatred for bosses, parents, people with different political positions and more. Now it has to be a situation where people are suffering physical ailments from long term stress caused by a pattern of feeling hatred much of the time. This is a radically idiosyncratic definition of the term. Not one used by psychologists, regular old people nor people who write dictionaries.

And basically you are telling honest people with the minimal introspective skills necessary to notice their own hatred that they are pathological or they don't understand their own language.

Hatred, according Google's online dictionary, is intense dislike; hate. Literally everyone has had intense dislike; hate, including this Swan person. It's not anywhere near as rare as Swan is suggesting. She is simply wrong, and getting into lengthy arguments with her over this won't change that. If she wants to define the word idiosyncratically, as she has done, then she can do so, but then she'll just be pointlessly talking about something else.

All your posts thus far are biased and spiteful in regard to something.
Time to face the music.

Swan

American politics is an absolute shit show. It hasn't gotten better in the past few years, either. Politics is everything emotion; and for a majority of people it is filled with nothing but emotion and ideological zombies. — Swan

Thanks - got it now. I find that the difficulty with leaving politics alone is that the politicos rush off and pull some insane trick like Brexit, threatening your children with unemployment and stretching the Bank of Mum and Dad to its limits. I think it's better to hang on in there fighting the weirdoes! :)

Think we're talking past each other, bud. You simply aren't understanding what I am saying. I already addressed the problems of the wordplay going on. Continuing this convo is doing nothing for either of us.

Come with relevant arguments, or get off the pot.

All you've done is sniff my ass with empty assertions and appeal to definitions along with the projecting (S) guy that's still bitching about two days ago.

Think we're talking past each other, bud. — Swan

Yes, you are, because you're going by an idiosyncratic definition, rather than the ordinary one that we're going by. What did you expect? You're creating your own problems, honey.

rather than the ordinary one that we're going by. — S

I'm well beyond ordinary, baby.

I'm well beyond ordinary, baby. — Swan

Statistically, those who are extraordinary are more likely to be crackpots than geniuses.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

:broken:

What am I not understanding? Please be specific about how I show that I do not understand, rather than simply disagree for the reasons I've given.

This is a valid question, Coben, but she may want to reply with reiterating what she said to you in her last post to you here.

Aside from that, if you don't understand what you don't understand, then it's hard to make you understand the very thing your arguing opponent wants you to understand. I have been down that path many times, the latest with @Bartricks. It is a Sysiphusian (sp?) work, and it's simply not worth the effort. I gave up on the argument with @Bartricks for this very reason; @Swan may want to give up the debate with you, as she can see (Please note: I am not taking sides, and I assert that I don't know if she is right or not in this) that you don't read what she wrote, at least not in the sense of understanding it.

There is no use in flogging a dead horse. I someone has to ask how much it costs, he can't afford it. If someone has to ask "what it is that I don't understand?" then he can't understand it.

I gave up on Batricks also.

if you don't understand what you don't understand, then it's hard to make you understand the very thing your arguing opponent wants you to understand.

But here's a start...she could have responded by quoting me where it showed I misunderstood her, and explained why this showed I misunderstood her. Then I have something to work with, and she is also testing to see if her interpretation is correct. There is a significant difference between we disagree and you aren't understanding what I am saying. I did quote her in my posts. I also tried to point out how her definition of hatred had shifted over time.

If she had told me before that I misunderstood and around what with a quote, it would have struck me as just taking an out. Perhaps I missed her saying 'you are misunderstanding my position', since to me it seemed like she was focused on disagreeing.

I do recognize that it can sometimes be hard to tell if it is a misinterpretation or a disagreement, but then specifics are the door out, if there is one.

I am pretty sure we disagree with each other. And if that becomes clear then it is,yes, a beating the dead horse situation. If we are misunderstanding each other, of course that can come to an impasse also. But I never experienced her as clarifying her position in relation to misunderstandings I was showing of that position, through her focusing on specific remarks I made. It seemed like someone disagreeing with me.

I could be wrong, hence my question.

But it's a kinda easy out to just say 'you don't understand me', if I do but disagree. I do consider it an if, right now. But heck, I'd be happy to find out we actually agreed. Or agreed more than it seems. I could have saved us all a lot of time and said 'No, you don't understand me', But I think she does.

But here's a start...she could have responded by quoting me where it showed I misunderstood her, and explained why this showed I misunderstood her. Then I have something to work with, and she is also testing to see if her interpretation is correct. There is a significant difference between we disagree and you aren't understanding what I am saying. I did quote her in my posts. I also tried to point out how her definition of hatred had shifted over time. — Coben

Your post demonstrates (for anyone that can read), that you took a section of the text I made and responded "at it" with whatever you wanted to.. instead of responding to the points made. It easily turns into someone breaking down things that should not have to be broken down.


Rather than the definition "shifting" I expel it ONLY when it has exhausted it's usefulness (which yours.. I do not find adequate), in philosophical, social-political, in other contexts outside of just "just an emotion" (i.e. Psych) - or fixating on "just language" ("I hate people"), which I find simply distracting and trivial.

To here is where I draw a distinction between "hate" (some form of stress relief) and "hatred" (in practice), the latter that does not necessarily have to entail "rage" - or prolonged periods of "rage" but only necessarily corresponding behaviors designed to inflict harm - or restrict something, or another (e.g. gossip, "social backstabbing") or whatever, as I had no problem acknowledging already, and the former not making any meaningful distinctions between (especially culturally) between other stress relief words and phrases, or reactions such as 'disgust', distrust, repulsion, etc. To where I personally don't find it interesting anymore.

This, was explained, I thought clearly enough, in my previous post, but again, you isolated the text - and began to talk right over me, rather than respond to what had been said.

I'll give you an example,

A similar phenomena has happened for example, with the word "misogynist" - which, by the book, is just "a hatred of women" but the definition begins to become inadequate when we venture into the men that practice misogyny - rather than just say, "wow I hate women" (e.g. making misogynistic statements) after a trivial break-up as a form of a psychological catharsis (rather than a guy that genuinely just "hates" women) or people labeling all others that express controversial opinions of women misogynists, etc., but examining further, we can discern and see this is not the case, and such words have lost it's significance and must be re-defined to where they are useful once again, because obviously, the definition does not adequately explain anything - nor give a sufficient reflection of what is being said.

Does Steve that's all broken up over a break-up, goes out and says, "I hate women!" actually feel "hatred" for women" ... Is he a misogynist (in the most simple sense of the word)...

Probably not.

And I'll stress, this is the point, anyway, on "philosophy" forums - and places that are designed to challenge beyond the standard, which seems to be the case - for even great thinkers - that do not restrict themselves to hate "just being an emotion" (as a psychologist) might.

There is a significant difference between we disagree and you aren't understanding what I am saying. — Coben

Absolutely.

By-the-by: @Swan, is your post above mine a response to Coben trying to explain to him what you think he does not understand? If yes, maybe you should expressly specify that, instead of leaving it as a new chapter of exchange of mutually misunderstood ideas.

trying to explain to him what you think he does not understand? — god must be atheist

A mutual misunderstanding is a double-edged sword. Person A thinks person B misundersands concept Z; but Person B is clear what concpet Z is, but in his response to Person A he uses or introduces concept Y which apparently Person A: Either understands but ignores or does not understand.

The un-understanding, misunderstanding and ignoring of points can escalate to heights where communication breakdown can't come too soon.

This happened between me and my wife, many times.

Rather than the definition "shifting" I expel it ONLY when it has exhausted it's usefulness (which yours.. I do not find adequate), in philosophical, social-political, in other contexts outside of just "just an emotion" (i.e. Psych) - or fixating on "just language" ("I hate people"), which I find simply distracting and trivial. — Swan

I would say hatred has a cognitive aspect also, so this is a good point. Rage can come cathartically, hate for me entails at least a temoporary categotization. A though that goes along with the emotion. I may have focused too much on the emotion and not this part and this could have been part of us talking past each other.

To here is where I draw a distinction between "hate" (some form of stress relief) and "hatred" (in practice), the latter that does not necessarily have to entail "rage" - or prolonged periods of "rage" but only necessarily corresponding behaviors, and the former not making any meaningful distinctions between (especially culturally) between other stress relief words and phrases, or reactions such as 'disgust', distrust, repulsion, etc. To where I personally don't find it interesting anymore. — Swan

I found this a little tricky to understand. If I missed it my apologies, but could you go into the kinds of reactions that I brought up a couple of times, where people feel hatred for employers or other people with power, where they cannot really confront the person and there is something abusive or chronically disrespectful on the employers part (or the employee thinks so). I think similar dynamics can occur related to issues of sexism, homophobia, racism, where for me it makes sense to say that these patterns elicit hate. In a sense hate in response to hate or prolonged disrespect. I would also say that longer term relationships, especially where there is an eventual split, say in a divorce can have significant periods, and repeated moods of hate. I think this is what the people say. In my own experiences - around friend's parents, relationships I have been around, and once for me - this is not just anger or rage or disgust coming in quickly and leaving.

A similar phenomena has happened for example, with the word "misogynist" - which, by the book, is just "a hatred of women" but the definition begins to become inadequate when we venture into the men that practice misogyny - rather than just say, "wow I hate women" (e.g. making misogynistic statements) after a trivial break-up as a form of a psychological catharsis (rather than a guy that genuinely just "hates" women) or people labeling all others that express controversial opinions of women misogynists, etc., but examining further, we can discern and see this is not the case, and such words have lost it's significance and must be re-defined to where they are useful once again, because obviously, the definition does not adequately explain anything - nor give a sufficient reflection of what is being said. — Swan

I wouldn't use misogynist for a person who blurts out that they hate women. I agree it would have to be part of a long term pattern. At least, I think I am agreeing with what you wrote. I am not talking about short moments of catharsis. And in fact I am glad that misogyny came up, because I do think it is fairly widespread in society, but would not consider using it for what you are saying above does not count as true misogeny. IOW I see this as rather widespread and that many of the patterns brought to light in the me too movement are signs of a hatred of women and also, given that women have often had to experience this in unequal power situations, a cause for hatred in response.

I mention these types of situations because I think they are fairily common in society, most of them relation to power imalances and oftne chronic, because I do think hate is involved, and not just the trivial cathartic version you do not count. I also think that many of the people who do feel hatred are not in need of therapy, CBT or another, but often need a different boss, to get out of a bad relationship - despite the children, for example - and also potentially to fight against systematic hatred that some groups face. And sometimes it is not easy to extricate oneself from these patterns for various reasons.

If it seems that yet again I have unfairly pulled your quotes out of context or misunderstood you, just let me know, I'll drop the discussion with you directly..

I appreciate that you took the time to respond...I just saw this...

If you read the text (which is also Cohen's problem), you could figure that out on your own. The reason I did not want to respond in the first place, because even then there was no point, as he isn't even reading - let alone understanding, because he quoted something, and responded in a fashion to where the quoted passage, DOESN'T EVEN SAY THAT. (Talking at me).

I don't think you did what I asked for above. I think we might be able to reach each other. But here you are saying I quoted you, but then responded in a way that showed I hadn't read what you wrote. What I was asking for in my previous post was an example of this kind of thing. Maybe I missed it in your latest post. But it seemed like you repeated your position again, in a new way.

If you read the text (which is also Cohen's problem), you could figure that out on your own. The reason I did not want to respond in the first place, because even then there was no point, as he isn't even reading - let alone understanding, because he quoted something, and responded in a fashion to where the quoted passage, DOESN'T EVEN SAY THAT. (Talking at me).

And I don't expect him to thoroughly read this post either, so it's likely going to be my last response here. This is just not productive for either person.

I'd be interested in your take on the paragraphs in the middle of her last post to me. I have read them a few times and feel they are unclear. LOL, maybe I have been misunderstanding.

But since you're the one trying to add complexity to where there isn't any, it's quite evident you're projecting on my answers. — Swan

I knew this would turn out to be amusingly ironic. Hate is an intense dislike. Lots of people have an intense dislike. Obviously not just the kind of people in prison for committing crimes of passion.

Who's overcomplicating here? Who's creating problems instead of easily solving them?

it's likely going to be my last response here — Swan

I hope you are only talking about the thread, not the site, when you say "last post here". I would be sad to see you go.

She's fiesty. I'll give her that. More like a Jack Russell than a swan.

There are only two paragraphs in her last post. Which do you consider "middle"?

I am sorry, but what you said ("she is feisty") sounds dismissive of Swan's worth. She may be passionate about her ideas, but so am I, and you, and most everyone here. Her gender ought not to influence our thinking, and her picture, absolutely not. (Actually, both do, and I am the first to admit. But we must behave as if they did not. Out of respect.)

I am sorry, but what you said ("she is feisty") sounds dismissive of Swan's worth. She may be passionate about her ideas, but so am I, and you, and most everyone here. Her gender ought not to influence our thinking, and her picture, absolutely not. (Actually, both do, and I am the first to admit. But we must behave as if they did not. Out of respect.) — god must be atheist

I'm always dismissive. It's kind of my thing. It's her thing, too. But I'm better at it.

It's short for Aswang.